BANK OF INDIA, ,SURAT vs. DY. CIT, TDS, CIRCLE, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

TDS / or deposited or likely to be deposited with this Revenue. Such correction made by way of rectification re negligible. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the submission made by Ld. Sr- DR for the Revenue. Therefore, the appeal of assessee is allowed on legal position / additional ground of appeal. 26. Considering the fact that we have allowed

BANK OF INDIA, ,SURAT vs. DY. CIT, TDS, CIRCLE, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

TDS / or deposited or likely to be deposited with this Revenue. Such correction made by way of rectification re negligible. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the submission made by Ld. Sr- DR for the Revenue. Therefore, the appeal of assessee is allowed on legal position / additional ground of appeal. 26. Considering the fact that we have allowed

BANK OF INDIA,SURAT vs. ITO (TDS-1), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

TDS / or deposited or likely to be deposited with this Revenue. Such correction made by way of rectification re negligible. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the submission made by Ld. Sr- DR for the Revenue. Therefore, the appeal of assessee is allowed on legal position / additional ground of appeal. 26. Considering the fact that we have allowed

BANK OF INDIA, ,SURAT vs. DY. CIT, TDS, CIRCLE, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, assessee’s both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am

TDS / or deposited or likely to be deposited with this Revenue. Such correction made by way of rectification re negligible. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the submission made by Ld. Sr- DR for the Revenue. Therefore, the appeal of assessee is allowed on legal position / additional ground of appeal. 26. Considering the fact that we have allowed

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, SURAT vs. M/S. KEJRIWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena

TDS, Circle- Ranchi under section 131 (1)(d) of the Act to conduct enquiries in case of the lenders based at Ranchi. The said officers have sent the enquiry reports, which are framing part of assessment order. The findings of the AO as per chart is as under: S. Name of the Alleged Findings of enquiry N. Lenders Loan(includi

D V PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.121/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) D. V. Properties Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit - 1, 748-749, Golden Plaza Market, Surat. Ring Road, Surat – 395002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacd8392B (Appellant) (Respondent) Ms Chaitali Shah, Ca Appellant By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2023

TDS are not allowable as per the income Tax Act, 1981. Hence, the aggregate amount of Rs.4,32,179/- ( Rs.3,85,407 + Rs.43,433 + Rs.3,145 + Rs.194) were required to be disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration, while finalizing the assessment proceedings. But the AO has not inquired properly into

SACH ELECTRO MECH PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-2, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

TDS in Form- No AS 26. Though, the assessing officer made additions on other various issues. 11. On the issue of service tax and VAT, the ld AR for the assessee submits that the assessee is following inclusive method of accounting in respect of accounting of taxes and government levies, which is in accordance with the mandates of section 145A

M/S. GUJARAT CHEMICAL PORT TERMINAL CO.LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE CIT-I, BARODA

In the result, Cross Objection appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1501/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Terminal V The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vadodara. Company Ltd., S Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, . Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2998/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income V M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Tax, Circle-1(1), Baroda. S Terminal Company Ltd., . Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Cross Objection No.30/Ahd/2015 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2998/Ahd/2014) "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Terminal Company Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, Baroda. Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 263 of the Act. The ld.Authorised Representative(AR) in this respect relied upon the decision of Co-o0rdinate Bench of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Arsh Industrials & Investments Pvt. Ltd., vs ITO [1988] 32 TTJ 402 (Ahmedabad), Ultramarine & Pigments Limited Vs. ACIT, Range- 7(3), Mumbai in ITA No.2844/Mum/2013 for A.Y. 2009-10, CIT, Patiala Vs. Roadmaster Industries

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT CHEMICAL PORT TERMINAL CO.LTD.,, BHARUCH

In the result, Cross Objection appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1501/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Terminal V The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vadodara. Company Ltd., S Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, . Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2998/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income V M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Tax, Circle-1(1), Baroda. S Terminal Company Ltd., . Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Cross Objection No.30/Ahd/2015 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2998/Ahd/2014) "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Terminal Company Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, Baroda. Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 263 of the Act. The ld.Authorised Representative(AR) in this respect relied upon the decision of Co-o0rdinate Bench of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Arsh Industrials & Investments Pvt. Ltd., vs ITO [1988] 32 TTJ 402 (Ahmedabad), Ultramarine & Pigments Limited Vs. ACIT, Range- 7(3), Mumbai in ITA No.2844/Mum/2013 for A.Y. 2009-10, CIT, Patiala Vs. Roadmaster Industries

ITO, WARD-3(3)(4), SURAT vs. M/S. SATYAM ENTERPRISE, SURAT

In the result, this part of issue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) I.T.O., M/S Satyam Enterprise, Ward- 3(3)(4), 182-Thakordwar Society, Nr. Vs. Surat. Spinning Mill, Varachha Road, Surat. Pan No. Abvfs 5076 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2014 which has been held as retrospective. To support such submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Rajkot Tribunal in Punabhai G. Pardava Vs ITO ITA No. 219/Rjt/2018 dated 08/06/2022. With regard to sub-contractor No. 6, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that

THE ITO, WARD-1,, NA vs. ARIVS.SHRI ANILKUMAR AMRUTLAL CHAHWALA, NAVSARI

In the result, this ground of appeal is rejected

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2078/Ahd/2010 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1003/Ahd/2011 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Anil Kumar Amrutlal Chahwala, Ward-(1), Navsari. 102, Trimurti Complex, Vijalpore, Navsari. [Pan: Abnpc 6308 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

section 40(a)(ia). The Assessing Officer disallowed the payment to labour contractor exceeding Rs.50,000/- without remitting TDS. The assessing officer identified 187 labour contractors in Padmavati Gems 258 labour contractor in Parth Corporation, thereby disallowed Rs.1.68 crore in Padmavati Gems and Rs.3.60 crore in Parth Corporation. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee made detailed written submission

ITO, WARD-3(3)(3), SURAT vs. M/S. M D HOUSE BUILD, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

32,64,724 Material with Vaghasiya labour 5 Nilesh R Dobariya 26,37,360 26,37,360 Material with labour 6 Pravinkumar M 31,52,101 31,52,002 Material with Korat labour 7 Ukeshbhai D Korat 31,52,002 31,52,002 Material with labour 8 Vijaykumar 34,14,669 34,14,669 Material with Vekariya labour 9 Timbadiya

THE ITO, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, SURAT vs. MICRO INKS LIMITED,, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2375/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, V Micro Inks Limited, (International Taxation), Surat. S. Bilakhia House, Muktanand Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. [Pan: Aaach 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2707/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Micro Inks Limited, V The Income Tax Officer, Bilakhia House, Muktanand S. (International Taxation), Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. Surat. [Pan: Aaach 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Gopala Krishnan – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2020 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 14.02.2020

section 9(1)(vb) of the Act. We thought it fit to dispose of the same by the present consolidated order. ITO,(Int. Taxation), Surat Vs. Micro Inks Ltd.: Vice-Versa /ITA No’s.2375 & 2707/AHD/2014 for A.Y. 2012-13 Page 4 of 27 8. The ld.Departmental Representative(DR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue relied upon the order

MICRO INKS PVT. LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS MICRO INKS LTD.),VAPI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, ( INTL. TAXN.), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2375/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, V Micro Inks Limited, (International Taxation), Surat. S. Bilakhia House, Muktanand Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. [Pan: Aaach 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2707/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Micro Inks Limited, V The Income Tax Officer, Bilakhia House, Muktanand S. (International Taxation), Marg, Chala, Vapi – 396 191. Surat. [Pan: Aaach 7063 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Gopala Krishnan – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2020 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 14.02.2020

section 9(1)(vb) of the Act. We thought it fit to dispose of the same by the present consolidated order. ITO,(Int. Taxation), Surat Vs. Micro Inks Ltd.: Vice-Versa /ITA No’s.2375 & 2707/AHD/2014 for A.Y. 2012-13 Page 4 of 27 8. The ld.Departmental Representative(DR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue relied upon the order

VITRAG PRINTS,SURAT vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.338/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Vitrag Prints, Vs. The Acit (Osd), K-2619 To 2622, Millenium Ward -1(2)(5), Textile Market Ring Road, Surat. Surat - 395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfv5612L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Jaykishan Goel, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By 22/09/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 14/12/2023

32,059/- which is hereby added to the total income of the assessee. This addition is the subject matter of appeal.” 4.ii. The appellant had submitted written arguments and supporting legal judgments contending that the addition needs to be deleted. 4.iii. I have considered the submissions of the appellant very carefully. The fact of the matter is that

AKSHAR GEMS,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.3(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.24/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Virtual Court Hearing) Akshar Gems, Assistant Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Shreeji Diamond Apartment, Vs. Income-Tax, Circle-3(2), Nandu Doshi Ni Wadi, Vastadevdi Road, Aaykar Bhavan Nr.Majura Katargam, Surat – 395004 Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001 (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aarfa3697A Assessee By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2023

section 271-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 28.06.2019. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, as well as law on the subject, the Learned Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Surat erred

SHRI VIRENDRA KUMAR LODHA,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

32,42,748/-. 10. Aggrieved by the addition as well as on reopening under section 147, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). Before ld. CIT(A), the assessee reiterated the similar submission on the additions of purchases as made 10 ITA 1383/Ahd/2017 Anil G Kumawat Vs ITO & 18 Ors Appeals. before Assessing Officer. The assessing officer has not disclosed

SHRI ANIL G. KUMAWAT,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

32,42,748/-. 10. Aggrieved by the addition as well as on reopening under section 147, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). Before ld. CIT(A), the assessee reiterated the similar submission on the additions of purchases as made 10 ITA 1383/Ahd/2017 Anil G Kumawat Vs ITO & 18 Ors Appeals. before Assessing Officer. The assessing officer has not disclosed